Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton prepared for a battle with her Democratic rivals at the CNN-sponsored debate on Thursday night. She did not have much to fear from the postdebate round table.

Among the experts trotted out by CNN to comment was James Carville, a Democratic strategist and CNN commentator who is also a close friend of Mrs. Clinton and a contributor to her campaign.

Mr. Carville’s presence aroused the fury of rivals and bloggers. They called it a conflict of interest and criticized CNN.

“Would it kill CNN to disclose that James Carville is a partisan Clinton supporter when talking about the presidential race?” Markos Moulitsas wrote on his liberal blog, Daily Kos. Mr. Moulitsas drew hundreds of comments.

If you're one of those dutiful souls who felt that the responsible exercise of citizenship required you to watch Thursday's debate among the Democratic candidates on CNN, you probably came away feeling as if you'd spent a couple of hours locked in the embrace of a time share salesman.

We're not talking about the candidates here, but about the shamelessly high-pressure pitch machine that has replaced the Cable News Network's once smart and reliable campaign coverage. Was there ever a better backdrop than Las Vegas for the traveling wreck of a journalistic carnival that CNN's political journalism has become? And can there now be any doubt that, in his last life, Wolf Blitzer had a booth on the midway, barking for the bearded lady and the dog-faced boy?

Tim Dickinson at Rolling Stone wonders if Wolf Blitzer is a douche or just a dislikeable fellow for running interference on behalf of Hillary.

I am convinced that CNN salted that audience with boo-ers to throw Obama and Edwards off their attack mode. NOBODY in their right mind would boo them for what they said. Bogus. Bogus. Bogus. Bogus. BOGUS! I smell a rat, and not just the softball question the young lady is now bitching about being made to ask.

I can't believe America will fall for being TOLD who their candidates are going to be AGAIN!

I did not watch the CNN presentation. I have read in numerous net-places the accusations and the denials over plants in the audience favoring HRC. I don't like HRC and would like to believe the deck was stacked against the others---but I have not seen anything definitive. It's like "government conspiracies": either you think the government can keep a secret or it cannot. Same with a CNN-Media conspiracy. If they can keep a secret, plants are plausible. If you think nobody can keep a secret, then plants are unlikely. The stories about planted questions have been partly true and partly fiction. I guess I am coming to the belief it doesn't matter that much, because so many who did see the debate discount anything they see on CNN anyhow--Blitzer bloviating, Androgenous Cooper, Coiffed Canadian Roberts. Obama, Edwards, Kucinich fans were offended and suspicious. I presume the same of Richardson, Dodd and Biden fans. But Hillary's claim she's a victim because she's ahead---that is hardly a strong response and in no way addresses the substance of what her critics have been saying. Hillary is running a "flawless" campaign say the pundits. Well we have just had 7 years of a Bush Campaign in office and we know that campaigning and governing are two very different things. I don't think having a "flawless campaign" is a qualification for President---at least not in the America I want restored to me.

Yes, the MSM is reporting fully on only one of the democratic candidates, Clinton. Our media conglomerates are saving money by doing this. Imagine the effort and expense they would have to go through to find bipartisan commentators to interview about all the candidates and then put together flashy little video summaries that cover all the candidates. They get enough mileage out of Hillary to keep the advertising dollars flowing into their networks. They'd be FOOLISH to expend more resources to actually provide more information for citizen viewers.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but we EXPECT big media to support the machine candidate(s). What I don't understand is all the additional piggy-backing attention that great sites like this one pay to them instead of focusing on the only two candidates that are the people's candidates- the ones who are confidently and aggressively pushing for the accountability that your readers are interested in: Kucinich and Paul. Internet mentions do have a unique counting mechanism that mass media doesn't...